Lords Sitting of 29 May 1868

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—West Indies * (135).
Committee—Metropolis Subways * (73).
Report—Sea Fisheries * (126); Metropolis Subways * (73).
Third Reading—Stockbrokers (Ireland) * (105); Documentary Evidence * (88), and passed.
Royal Assent—Customs and Income Tax [31 Vict. c. 28]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000)[31 Vict. c. 27]; Consolidated Fund (£17,000,000) [31 Vict. c. 16]; London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance [31 Vict. c. 17]; Railways (Extension of Time) [31 Vict. c. 18]; Ecclesiastical Commissioners Orders in Council [31 Vict. c. 19]; Legitimacy Declaration (Ireland) [31 Vict. c. 20]; Prisons (Compensation to Officers) [31 Vict. c. 21]; Oyster and Mussel Fisheries [31 Vict. c. 9]; Petty Sessions and Lock-up Houses [31 Vict. c. 22]; Marriages (Frampton Mansel) [31 Vict. c. 23]; Capital Punishment within Prisons [31 Vict. c. 24]; Industrial Schools (Ireland) [31 Vict. c. 25]; Indian Railway Companies [31 Vict. c. 26]; United Parishes (Scotland) [31 Vict. c. 30]; Medical Practitioners (Colonies) [31 Vict. c. 29]; Inclosure [31 Vict. c. 31]; Local Government Supplemental (1868) [31 Vict. c. 10].

UNIVERSITY TESTS.—PETITIONS.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he had given Notice that to-day he would present Petitions from resident and nonresident Members of the University of Oxford, praying for the Removal of Religious Tests in the University. He had given this Notice because the Petitions were of so much weight and importance that he desired to call the special attention of their Lordships to them. Ono of these Petitions, signed by 102 persons who now were or formerly had been Fellows of the University of Oxford, set forth that theological tests at the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, while failing to secure unity of religious opinion, had proved injurious to learning and education, and had the effect of excluding large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects from the benefits of University education. For these reasons the Petitioners prayed that all theological tests in the Universities might be removed. If he were to read to their Lordships, which he certainly should not trouble them by doing, the names appended to the Petition, it would be seen

1013
that they were the names of gentlemen of great weight and reputation, and such as undoubtedly would have influence with their Lordships. The other Petition, to which he attached even greater importance, was signed by eighty resident Members of the University of Oxford, and it was especially to be remarked that it included the names of sixty out of the 105 Tutors and Lecturers of the University of Oxford, representing, therefore, a clear, distinct and considerable majority of the whole teaching power of the University. To pursue the analysis a little further—in Merton, Corpus, Trinity, and New Colleges the whole of the educational staff had signed the Petition; in Baliol, Oriel, Lincoln, and Worcester at least two thirds of the staff had signed; and out of the whole eighteen Colleges in which teaching was carried on there were only six where a majority of the tutors and lecturers had not signed the Petition. The Petitioners stated that they were—
"Engaged as Heads of Colleges, Lecturers. Teachers, or resident Fellows, in the work of education in the University; that a portion of the nation were excluded from the benefit of the University by the religious tests imposed in it and in the Colleges; and that, in the opinion of the Petitioners, these tests might be removed without injury to the Church, without prejudice to the religious character of academical education, and without interference with the religious working of the Colleges."
The importance of this Petition consisted not only in the number of the signatures, but in the plainness and distinctness of the prayer—there was no doubt or hesitation as to the ground that should be taken up—the Petitioners declared that tests were an hindrance to an extension of education to the whole nation, and they prayed Parliament to remove them. The present state of affairs was this—in the University of Oxford persons not belonging to the Established Church might proceed as far as the Bachelor degree, and at Cambridge as far as the degree of M.A.; but in both Universities such persons were excluded from any share in the government and from the Fellowships. They had in this matter made some progress of late years; but it seemed to him that the very progress they had made in the right direction was a proof that now it was impossible to stand still. But a very few years ago no one could be admitted to either University unless he conformed to the Church of England. Now Nonconformists
1014
were admitted to the benefits of the education given, but were still excluded from any share of the privileges and emoluments open to a successful academical career. That he ventured to think was a state of things which was utterly untenable. He could understand the Universities being dealt with as institutions exclusively Church of England in their character; but he could not understand why, having admitted Nonconformists and Jews to enter the Universities and attain certain degrees, an arbitrary barrier should then be created to prevent their further progress. He did not say that an Act of Parliament ought to be passed compelling the Colleges to open their Fellowships to persons of all religious beliefs, but he did say that Parliament should remove those barriers which it had itself raised to the free action of the Colleges in the matter. The measure of last year had been complained of as an incomplete one, because it extended only to offices in the Universities, and did not touch offices in the Colleges; and, to meet that complaint, he would suggest that upon the occasion of any measure on the subject again coming before their Lordships, they should consent to deal not only with offices in the Universities, but also to abolish those Acts of Parliament which prevented the Colleges from opening their Fellowships if they should think fit to do so, to persons not belonging to the Church of England. It must be admitted to be a matter of extreme importance that all the upper and middle classes of the country should have the opportunity of receiving the best education that the Universities could afford. Was it, therefore, a desirable thing that so large a portion of the middle classes as belonged to Nonconformist; bodies should be excluded from the main benefits and attractions which the Universities held out? The Nonconformists themselves felt acutely the distinction that was drawn to their disadvantage, and had expressed, in a very remarkable statement, their sense of the great good they would reap if the whole privileges and emoluments of the Universities were thrown open to them. What were the objections that were capable of being urged? He thought they must either be objections derived from some argument connected with education, or else from some consideration exclusively connected with the Church. Could it be contended that the education of members of the

1015
Church of England would suffer by others, not members, being admitted to share in the privileges and emoluments of Universities? He knew that such an argument had been put forward; but he believed that since he had the honour of being a resident member of the University matters had not very much changed, and he could say for himself that the amount of direct religious instruction which he had received at Oxford was so infinitesimally small that whether he had received it at the hands of one who was or was not a member of the Church of England made, he thought, exceedingly little difference. He remembered that a great portion of the instruction which was given at that time consisted of a short lecture on the Greek Testament given to freshmen during their first and second term, being left after that pretty much to their own devices, and of the Thirty-nine Articles, which men were compelled to get up with great labour, and, he feared, with little profit, in order that they might be called upon to repeat them in the schools. If a similar system were pursued in the present day, he did not think, as far as religious teaching was concerned, anybody need much care whether the Universities were or were not opened to persons not being members of the Church of England. Undoubtedly, as far as those undergraduates were concerned who were going to take Orders, their religious instruction was a matter of great importance, and especial care should be taken to preserve to them such advantages as they now enjoyed. It was not proposed that any alteration should be made in the lectures given upon special subjects of theology, and those wishing to receive special instruction in the doctrines of the Church of England would continue to receive it; but could it be advisable that an exclusive policy should be persisted in with regard to the Universities as a whole, merely for the purpose of securing the education of one portion of the people? The Church of England, he maintained, was not supported or strengthened by such a policy. The true policy of the Church, like that of every other institution, was to make as many friends and as few enemies as possible; and, believing that an exclusive policy and the maintenance of restrictions tended to make enemies, he believed that it was calculated to weaken the Church. It seemed to him that the Church would fare better if its adherents would allow it to
1016
stand upon its own merits. He ventured to suggest that the Universities were national institutions, that they should be maintained for the exclusive use of no particular portion of the community, and that when Petitions such as those he now presented to their Lordships came before them signed by those who were best acquainted with the character of their University, and undoubtedly had its interests at heart, Parliament should certainly pay great attention to the prayer of such Petitions, and, if possible, proceed to legislate in their spirit. The noble Earl then presented Petitions of Heads of Colleges, Professors, &c, resident in Oxford; and of non-resident, present, or former Fellows of Colleges at Oxford, for the Abolition of Tests in the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
LORD HOUGHTONthought that a Petition coming from a body of men of such varying opinions, but all of whom occupied a position of considerable weight and influence, was deserving of their Lordships' highest consideration. He sincerely hoped that the press of Public Business would not be such as to prevent their Lordships from taking into their consideration and coming to a decision upon the Bill now before the other House, which dealt with the subject of this Petition—he meant the University Tests Bill. He proposed, when the Bill should be before their Lordships, to express his opinion on this subject at length. At present he would simply say that this Petition was of extreme value, as showing the opinion of the members of the principal Colleges of Oxford in regard to the management of their own affairs. He had always insisted that there was a great distinction between the University and the Colleges, and he regretted that the extremely moderate measure proposed last year was not adopted. While they recognized the right of the Universities to the title of Imperial institutions, there was some difference in respect to the Colleges; and when such a proposal came from the heads of those Colleges, he thought it high time to set about their reform. He could certainly endorse the remarks of his noble Friend with respect to the high importance of a religious education: but at the same time it was not the main business, either of the Universities or our public schools to enter into theological teaching. The foundations of a religious education ought to be laid before

1017
young men went to the University, and a College should, properly speaking, confine itself to preventing its students from receiving evil impressions while it confirmed whatever was good in them. Certainly religion ought not to be ignored at such institutions, although there might be very little direct religious teaching. It had been said that the effect of the removal of existing disabilities would be to introduce a great deal of theological controversy into the Universities. He did not think that that argument was well-grounded. The Church of England itself contained in its various sections the elements of continual controversy, and theological disputes were much more due to points raised within the Church herself, than to any raised by Nonconformists; and if the polemical discussions now rife did no harm, he did not see that they could do much if their sphere were somewhat extended. He did not believe that the maintenance of any restrictions in the University would secure the Church of England from attack, nor did he believe that the young men who would go to the University after such restrictions had been removed would be exposed to any more theological controversy than exists at the present moment. On the contrary, he believed that it was for the interest of the Universities that they should attract all the intelligence of the country, whatever might be the religious opinions of those who sought admission; and as he believed that the prayer of the Petitioners pointed to a consummation of this result, he trusted their Lordships would give it the fullest consideration.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the Petition presented by his noble Friend went so thoroughly to the root of the whole University system and its influence on the country that he felt bound to say a few words on it. Since he had had the honour of a seat in their Lordships' House the question of religious tests in the Universities had passed through three distinct phases, which might well illustrate the growth, he would not say of opinion, but at all events of feeling on the part of one section of the community—namely, the so-called University Reformers. The question was before the House when he first had the honour of taking his seat among their Lordships, and they were distinctly told in the other House of Parliament that the Bill which was then under consideration—the University Reform Bill—was not to affect in any degree religious teaching
1018
in the University. He had learnt since then how little trust could be placed on Parliamentary professions or securities. The second stage, which had lasted almost up to the present time, was an attempt on the part of the Reformers to lower successively the standard with regard to the government of the Universities—first at Oxford, afterwards at Cambridge—taking care never to lower the standard of both Universities to exactly the same level, but making the lower standard in one University the pretence for advocating a further reduction in the other; and care being taken that the standard at the two should never be equalized. Since then a bolder front had been assumed, and the House was now asked, not to relax University tests, but to abolish them utterly. The more open Reformers declared the Universities were not places for religious education at all. He did not understand that to be the desire of the noble Earl, or of the Petitioners whose prayer he endorsed; but he doubted whether, when the real views of those who were pressing forward this question became known, they would obtain the sanction of the country. The proposal in fact was to hand over young men of from seventeen to twenty years of age—the age at which they were most susceptible of religious impressions—to a University system, in order not that they might make their selection of that form of religious education which they might approve, but that they might be placed under a system from which public religious teaching was deliberately excluded. He doubted whether the country was prepared to accept such a proposition. The arguments of a less advanced school, to which his noble Friend seemed to belong, asked for relief from religious tests, on the ground that the more a Church was deprived of artificial barriers in the shape of religious tests and securities, the more the cause of religious truth was likely to be promoted in a University. But could that rule be applied to any other description of teaching? The fallacy of the argument was apparent the moment it was applied to matters of secular education. Could it be argued that just as students in secular subjects were relieved from tests and examinations, knowledge would be developed? Was it just then to the different Universities that a different standard and different view should be applied to that which was applied to all other institutions? He admitted that religion might

1019
still exist in the Universities after the removal of the tests; but after their removal there would exist that hazy un-definable atmosphere of religious sentiment which as it was little connected with positive religion so was injurious even in an intellectual point of view to that habit of clear definition which was the great object of education. His noble Friend opposite said that the religious teaching at the University in his day was very small—and he dared say it was. But some persons went further, and said that the religious teaching of the present day was worse, and that most of the Masters of Arts of the present generation were of a sceptical turn—a fact which, if it were true, might pretty well account for so many being in favour of the removal of all religious tests. His reply was—that, first of all, he doubted the fact. But, in the next place, even if it were so, was that a reason for changing the system of a University? He doubted not that if such an amount of scepticism existed as was said, it was, after all, only one of the phases of thought which might be here today and gone to-morrow, and which would produce no more effect than the wave which swept over the sands of the sea shore, but which in its retiring left the old landmarks clearly definable. Would the noble Earl argue that because there was a sceptical phase of thought now prevailing, they were to abolish tests and safeguards which were created for other purposes and for other circumstances? Such a proceeding would be as sensible as if in a time of pestilence, they were to proceed to destroy the whole science of medicine which was found efficacious in all ordinary times for the cure of disease. His noble Friend spoke of this as a Dissenters' question; he wished it was, for he should not despair of being able to come to terms with them; but what was wished, so far as he could understand, was not the removal of tests and disabilities which pressed upon Dissenters, but to remove tests and securities which weighed upon every honest Churchman. It was therefore a serious question which Dissenters had to ask themselves—whether or not they were prepared at all hazards to support a party which desired to eliminate from the Universities all religious tests, or whether they would stand by those who desired to retain them. In his opinion those who sided with those who now proposed the abolition of those tests would
1020
find themselves carried much further than they intended. But anyhow the time of the decision of the question had not yet arrived. There was no Bill before their Lordships' House, and it was not necessary for the House to attempt any definite settlement of the question. Still no one could deny the fact that the time was approaching when some decision must be come to. Things could not go on very long as they were; it was evident that both parties were collecting all their strength, and it would be for the religious Dissenters to say what side they would take—whether true to the principles which they had often recognized they would side with the cause of the Church of England—or whether they would take part with the enemies of the Church of England, and espouse the cause of those who desire absolutely to banish all religion from the educational system of our two great Universities.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIREsaid, that in his position, he thought he ought to say a few words with reference to the state of feeling in the University of Cambridge on this question. The opinions of the members of that University had been materially influenced by what had already taken place on the question, and his knowledge of the University justified him in saying that the preponderance of feeling on the part of the resident members was decidedly against the relaxation of the disabilities which it was proposed to remove; while, on the other hand, there was a very considerable and a decidedly increasing minority in favour of the removal of these restrictions. The University, in its corporate capacity, had protested against the relaxation, the matter being decided in the Senate house by a majority of about 2 to 1 against the Bill before the other House of Parliament, and he believed that those numbers very faithfully represented the relative strength of the two sides of the University. There was also the Memorial presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by 1,000 graduates of the University, combining, no doubt, a large number of eminent men. On the other side a Petition had been presented by 226 gentlemen, including many Professors of the University and Fellows of Colleges who had attained the highest University distinctions, and also by a number of laymen, which petition was decidedly in favour of the relaxation of the existing restrictions. The distinguishing feature of the Petition was

1021
that the motive was not so much to obtain a large number of signatures as to secure the assent of men of mark and distinction; and it was worthy of remark that the names included those of many whose opinions on general questions were decidedly of a Conservative tendency. Besides the Petitions emanating from the University, Petitions had been presented from Trinity College, Christ's College, and St. Peter's College. The Petition from Trinity was signed by a majority of the Fellows—by 32 out of 60—and he was informed that among the minority were several who declined to affix their names to a Petition on the opposite side of the question. The Petition from Christ's College was signed by the Master and all the Fellows but one. What conferred a value on these Petitions was that the maintenance of these disabilities was a practical grievance to the Colleges; and at the latter College he understood it was contended that the interests of the College had suffered material injury from the continuance of these tests. At Trinity for many years past a large number of Nonconformist students had constantly been admitted, many of them being Presbyterian students who had received a portion of their education in Scotch Colleges; and the Fellows of Trinity spoke favourably of the result. He could not help thinking, looking at the fact that the uniform tendency of the legislation of late years had been to remove such disabilities, that it was hard that these tests should still be continued. As far as concerned a considerable proportion of the members of the University of Cambridge, a measure affecting their removal would not have to be forced on those who were reluctant or unwilling to receive it. There was every reason to believe that if the Act of Uniformity were repealed, as far as it related to the admission to College Fellowships, some of the Colleges would avail themselves of the liberty afforded them and admit Dissenters to Fellowships in such cases as they might deem expedient; while the remaining Colleges would have an opportunity of judging from experience the results of the relaxation which had been made in the case of the other Colleges.
THE BISHOP OF ELYsaid, the noble Lord was correct in his statement, that some very important Petitions against the Bill had been presented by members of Colleges. Indeed, he held in his hand one important Petition, which the rules of the
1022
House prevented him from presenting on that occasion. It was a Petition signed by nearly 1,000 undergraduates and Bachelors of Arts of Cambridge, who, though they held no political status in their University, were most of them probably of full age, and so fairly entitled to petition Parliament, representing as they did a large body of the most highly educated young men in England. The Petition strongly urged their Lordships not to entertain either of the Bills now before the other House of Parliament. He might further state that a short time since he had been present when a deputation from the University of Cambridge waited upon the Primate with a Petition or Memorial, signed, not as the noble Duke had said by 1,000, but by 2,800 graduates of Cambridge, a very large number indeed, considering how widely scattered such persons are, over England, Scotland, Ireland, the Continent, and the Colonies. The Petition, which had the names of many of the most eminent members of the University attached to it, urged the Archbishop of Canterbury to plead the cause of the University against the proposed changes. It was true that these changes were advocated by a certain number of able men; but there never was a time when there were not able men who took liberal views both in politics and theology, and he should be sorry that their Lordships should be carried away by the statement that, on this occasion, the liberal view was the view of the leading men in Oxford and Cambridge. It was stated the other day at Lambeth by a distinguished lay member of the University of Cambridge, who accompanied the deputation to the Archbishop, that not only the clerical members of the University but a large number of the most distinguished laymen, especially many of the lay professors at Cambridge, men of world-wide reputation, who did not so much represent Churchmen as men of science, literature, and intellect, protested against them. He had not been aware that there was any intention to discuss the subject that evening; but, as it had been brought forward, he trusted that their Lordships would allow him, as Bishop of the diocese in which one of the Universities lay, to make a few observations in answer to remarks which had fallen from noble Lords opposite. As regarded the question of the religious education of the Universities, he must respectfully say, that he could not agree with

1023
what had been said by the noble Earl opposite concerning theological lectures. Personally he felt that he owed a debt of gratitude for the lectures which he had attended when he was an undergraduate; and he knew by testimony which he had received from many quarters that thousands had been indebted through life to the religious instruction they had received in Colleges. Without question, much of the religious and theological teaching of the Colleges, as well as of the University, was not compulsory teaching, and therefore one person may have profited by it, whilst others were wholly regardless of it. He was speaking only for Cambridge; but as his Oxford friends were rather fond of twitting Cambridge with the inferiority of its system of religious teaching, he presumed that what he had said of such teaching at Cambridge, applied at least as much to the teaching of Oxford. It was said that the Colleges would profit by the proposed changes. In the first place, he would remind their Lordships that these Colleges were all Church foundations. They were all founded by members of the national Church—very many of them clergymen—for education on Christian principles connected with that Church. All the benefits of their education were, indeed, open to everyone, whatever his creed—all the honours, even the degrees; everything but the positions which would admit them to power and authority. But they were founded and endowed by Churchmen, and, though he did not for a moment admit the distinction between pre-Reformation and post-Reformation foundations—for the Re-formation did not change, though it purified the Church—yet it was to be observed that some whole Colleges, and many foundations within the Colleges, came into existence since the Reformation, for the special purpose of educating Churchmen, often for the special purpose of educating clergymen. One of his own predecessors, Hugo de Balsham, Bishop of Ely, founded, out of his own episcopal revenues, the first College ever founded in Cambridge. Another of his predecessors, in the same manner, Bishop Alcock, founded Jesus College. The College to which he himself belonged had been founded since the Reformation by an English Churchman for the education of English clergymen. It would be a strong measure indeed if the Houses of Parliament, by a single vote, were to sweep away these institutions, founded by the pi6ty of our forefathers,
1024
and revolutionize them by placing at their head persons who might not be members of the Church of England, not only Dissenters or Roman Catholics, but even persons of no religion whatever. The noble Duke had spoken of the improvement which would be introduced into that most distinguished College of which he (the noble Duke) was a member. But was it not possible, nay, even probable, that the proposed changes would entirely revolutionize that College? What was the constitution of that College? It consisted of a Master and sixty Fellows; but the governing power was entirely vested in the Master and the eight seniors. It would be possible enough that a certain number of Dissenters might be elected into that body without materially affecting its principles or the working of the College. But suppose, at any time, some six or seven of the sixty Fellows were Roman Catholic priests, especially Jesuits, what would be the inevitable result? These six or seven men could never marry, could never take College livings: so they would never vacate their Fellowships. They would therefore in the course of time become members of the seniority, would become a large majority of that seniority. Now, the seniority elects Fellows, appoints tutors, governs the whole College. Hence if six Jesuits or Roman Catholic priests were once elected among the sixty Fellows of Trinity, they would have it in their power, by holding on till they were seniors, to revolutionize the whole body, and to convert it from what it now is into a simple Roman Catholic College. They would have it in their power, and on their own principles they would naturally exercise that power. Neither then on principles of justice, nor on principles of expediency, can it be well to deprive our Colleges of their religious character.
THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNbegged their Lordships to consider, whether the Universities were really national institutions, of the nation and for the nation, or merely to be devoted to the education and advantage of those who belonged to the Church of England? He, with many of those who belonged to the University of Oxford, turned to their noble Chancellor (the Earl of Derby), who so gracefully and ably presided over the destinies of that University, with a feeling of confidence that his powerful voice would be heard in favour of the Bill to which allusion had been made when it came up to their Lord-

1025
ships' House. They had instituted inquiries into national schools and middle-class schools, showing that the intentions of founders need not always be curried out to the very letter; and he asked them to consider whether, when in politics, in law, and in the lower kinds of education, the thoughts of men were widening, they would not consent to the proposed changes with reference to the highest education of all—whether they were not prepared to accept a measure winch must confer the highest advantages on future generations?
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he would not detain their Lordships from a more interesting, if not a more important, discussion; but he wished to say a very few words for the purpose of obviating the great confusion which evidently arose from mixing up the case of the Colleges with that of the Universities. He was glad to hear from the noble Baron (Lord Hough ton) that these two things should be kept distinct. They were in reality very different. One point he thought of importance, and that was, that Colleges should not be allowed to regulate themselves by persons who might accidentally be members at the time; if there was any right in the matter, it should be regulated by Parliament itself. In his time a great deal of religious instruction was given in the Colleges. During the seven years he was tutor of a College, at least one-third of his time was occupied in giving religious instruction, How far it was profitably received by those to whom it was given it was impossible for him to say. It was lamentable to think that time so given had been wasted, as many would have them believe.
Petitions ordered to lie on the Table.

WHITSUNTIDE RECESS—VOTE OF THANKS TO THE ARMY IN ABYSSINIA— STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, before moving the adjournment of the House to Monday, the 8th of June, I wish to inform your Lordships that I shall move a Vote of Thanks to the Forces who have been so victorious in Abyssinia on Tuesday, the 9th; and on Monday, the 8th, I shall be able to lay on your Lordships' table the terms in which 1 propose to put that Vote to the House. My Lords, I move that this House do adjourn till Monday, the 8th of June.
Moved, "That this House do adjourn to Monday, the 8th of June next."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I have given Notice to call the attention of your Lordships to the state of public affairs, because I wish to obtain some explanation from the noble Lord (the Lord Privy Seal), on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, and also because I conceive that the present state of affairs is one without precedent since the accession of the House of Hanover. I think there never has been u time when Parliament was proceeding quietly with the ordinary Business when it had been formally announced that the Government had nut the confidence of the House of Commons. I state this on no mean authority. The Primp Minister himself has stated, and the statement has been circulated throughout the country, that in consequence of the vote of the House of Commons with respect to the Irish Church he had thought it necessary to ask an audience of Her Majesty, and that at that audience he had asked of Her Majesty, in the name of the Ministry, permission to use the Prerogative of the Crown for the purpose of dissolving Parliament. Now a more authoritative declaration never was addressed to the House of Commons by the First Minister of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman naturally and truly stated that he was an express authority on the subject. Her Majesty, on that advice, gave him permission to use the Prerogative of the Crown for that purpose, in order to take the sense of the people on the question of the Irish Church as soon as the despatch of Public Business would allow of the dissolution of the Parliament. But the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury did not take the course which Her Majesty had sanctioned—namely, that as soon as Public Business would allow there should be a dissolution of Parliament. There were, I confess, strong reasons for not taking that course. There seemed no object to be gained by putting the whole country to the trouble and vast expense of a General Election, when that election would produce no adequate result. Supposing that the right hon. Gentleman's prediction should be fulfilled, and that he bad a majority against the disestablishment of the Irish Church on an appeal to the present constituencies, still it was evident that before very long there must be another election, and an appeal to constituencies very considerably enlarged, especially in the boroughs of the country. Therefore, the opinion to be derived from

1027
the present electors would not be a final decision; and the country would have been put to a great expense and the Members of the House of Commons to very considerable trouble by a General Election under the existing system—and that, too, as I said before, with no adequate result. It is evident, therefore, that there were sufficient reasons why there should not be a dissolution at once; and the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury, while not advising an immediate dissolution, has taken another course, which, however defensible it may be, is altogether new, and requires at least the attention of your Lordships. The course proposed is, in effect, that the present Ministers should continue to keep their places after having declared that they had not the confidence of the present House of Commons, and that the House should continue transacting its ordinary Business, and that that position should last for six months after the time at which the Prime Minister had advised a dissolution. I must say that that is an extraordinary and unprecedented state of things. There have been many instances in which a Minister who has been defeated in the House of Commons has tendered his resignation, and often the Minister so defeated has obtained the permission of the Crown to resort to a dissolution of Parliament; but I do not recollect any case in which a Minister, having advised that there should be a dissolution, that dissolution should not take place for more than six months after the advice has been tendered to the Crown. No doubt there is great convenience to be obtained by that course—a great convenience to the Minister, who would thus remain in Office, though not possessing the confidence of the House of Commons; and, likewise, it is greatly convenient to the Members of the House of Commons, who otherwise would have to undergo the expense of two General Elections instead of one, while the country is spared a great disturbance. At the same time, I must say that if Parliament and the country acquiesce in that state of affairs—a state of things which is without precedent, and difficult of justification—there are some conditions, at least, which we ought to have from the Executive Government. I think that the first condition should be that no time should be lost, and that there should be no unnecessary delay before the registration, which would afford
1028
the means of having a General Election completed. It appears to me that there was great and unnecessary delay in the course taken last year. In looking back to the Session of 1832, I find that a very large and extensive measure of Reform was passed for England and the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills were also passed; there were Boundary Bills for England and Ireland, and, I rather believe, for Scotland also; and the Session ended on the 16th of August. I must say it seems to me that, in the course of last year, the Government, of which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) was then the head, seemed rather to have procrastinated Business, with a view not to pass the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills, so that there might be an unnecessary Session in the present year. That being the case, I hope the Government will assure us that, instead of interposing unnecessary delays, they will rather hasten some of the processes by which the registration is to be made out. There is no need, for instance, for so very long a time being allowed to the Revising Barristers. By the Reform Act of 1832 power was given to the Judges to increase the number of Revising Barristers if it were inadequate, to get through the business in the time limited. If that power were now exercised, no doubt considerable expedition in establishing the rights of the voters would result. I do not know that there can be great despatch obtained by a step which has been suggested—namely, that before the registration is completed there should be a dissolution of Parliament; because I believe that when there is a dissolution the elections in London, Westminster, and all places near the metropolis will occur in about four clays afterwards. But we may ask that there should not be any unnecessary loss of time, and that the Scotch and Irish Reform Bills and the Boundary Bill should be proceeded with as speedily as possible, so that the country may have the satisfaction of exercising the suffrage under the new Reform Acts, which many persons believe to be an improvement of the electoral system, but which the noble Earl opposite called "a leap in the dark," and which, as I believe, was very justly so described. At all events, we should know what we are to expect from it. The next thing which I think we have a right to ask is that there should be some definite policy announced by Her Majesty's Government. I think that whenever the dissolution

1029
occurs it would be unfair for the Government to ask the decision of the country as to who should be its representatives unless they announced certain principles. In the summer of last year I ventured to state that I thought there were three questions of great importance to be decided. The first is the question of church rates. There is no policy on the part of the Government with respect to church rates. Mr. Gladstone, who is in fact the Leader of the majority in the other House, and who introduced a Bill in respect to church rates, was impressed with the belief that the Government intended to oppose that measure; and it was only because the demonstration of force against it proved insufficient that they abstained from direct resistance to it. The Bill then passed by a considerable majority, and came to this House. We were then assured that the Bill, having passed the other House by a large majority, would be fairly treated in this, and the noble Earl opposite proposed that it should go to a Select Committee, not, as he represented, with the view of defeating it, but for the purpose of its improvement. Well, I trust that the Bill will come out of that Select Committee uninjured, and in such a shape that the House of Commons will have no difficulty in adopting the Amendments. But when I understand, as there was a great demonstration of force against it in the other House, and when I know that it has many enemies in this House, I feel doubtful whether some of the Members of the Government will give it that cordial support by which alone it can obtain the general assent of Parliament. Another subject to which I alluded as being of vast importance was the great question of education. I will not now anticipate the discussion on that question; but I hope that the Government have some measures in contemplation which will comprehend that subject in all its breadth—which will provide for the primary education of the poorer classes, the education of the middle classes, for the treatment of endowed schools, and, lastly, for the improvement of education in our Universities. I hope when the Reformed Parliament meets some measure worthy of its consideration will be proposed on these subjects. There is another subject of which I then stated I thought there must be a consideration at an early period. That is the state of Ireland. Everything shows that it is a question which requires immediate consideration. When the Suspen-
1030
sion of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland was passing through this House, and I was giving my ready assent to that measure, I said that I hoped the policy of the Government with regard to Ireland would be stated and developed. In reply to my observation on the subject the Government replied that the only reason for not stating that policy in this House then was that it would be more convenient that the noble Earl the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—himself a Member of the Cabinet—should state in the other House of Parliament what was the whole policy of the Government with respect to Ireland. We were told in the month of March that within a few days—I think on the Monday following—the whole of that policy would be stated by the noble Earl in the House of Commons. It was stated in the House of Commons, and it embraced that portion of the Irish question which had engaged the special attention of your Lordships—namely, the position of the Church. I think I have got here what was said by the Earl of Mayo when speaking on that subject. He said—"There would not, I believe, be any objection to making all Churches equal, but the result must be secured by elevation, and not confiscation." That was a very important declaration. It was the deliberate declaration of the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the month of March last. Undoubtedly, equality may be produced by what is called "elevation" as well as by endowment; but I cannot see how with one Church in possession of establishment and endowment you could produce equality among all Churches—which is Lord Mayo's phrase—otherwiso than by giving establishment and endowment to the Roman Catholic and the Presbyterian Churches in Ireland—I say I do not see how equality can be established by elevation, if establishment and endowment are to be continued to the Protestant Episcopalian Church in that country, in any other way than by raising the Roman Catholic Church and the Presbyterian Church as regards endowment, and establishment to the same level as the Episcopal Church. Of course, every one supposed that was the policy of equality by elevation put forward by Her Majesty's Government—that their policy was to extend to the Roman Catholics and the Presbyterians privileges similar to those now enjoyed by the Established Church in Ireland. It is obvious that equality together with elevation could be produced in no other wav; and yet,

1031
after some three months, when we ask what this policy amounts to, it appears that the plan at one time entertained of giving a charter to a Roman Catholic University, which threatened to create a most calamitous division on the subject of education in Ireland, has been abandoned. Indeed, as far as I can see, the whole of that policy which was stated in such detail by Lord Mayo in a three hours' speech has been abandoned. It appears that the elevation of all Churches which the noble Earl proposes amounts simply to this—that the Roman Catholics will be allowed to lay out their own money and build their own churches—that, in fact, no law will be proposed to prevent them from laying out their own money in providing for their own spiritual wants according to the rites of their own religion. The policy of the Government is, therefore, to do nothing; but that is hardly a policy to require more than three hours for its exposition. It is a policy which ought to be fairly stated, at all events. When we ask what the Government mean to do to meet the evils of Ireland, I do not mean to say they ought to adopt any views which I may entertain; but, at all events, they should say, "We intend to do nothing. We think force is sufficient; force has been used hitherto, force will do in future, and we have no other policy." There are many other subjects with regard to which I think the Government might be asked to state their policy; but those are three very main subjects. Well, I ask next, what has been the conduct of the Government in respect to executive administration and the preservation of the public peace? I find a most remarkable assertion made by the Committee of the Reform League with regard to the preservation of the peace of this metropolis on a very memorable occasion. The late Government proposed a plan of Reform which the country generally appeared to approve. It was heartily approved by numerous meetings composed of very large numbers. It failed, however, to obtain the approval of Parliament. But when the party of the noble Earl opposite came into power, the Reform League appears to have thought that nothing but very great demonstrations of numbers and power would obtain a measure of Reform from the new Government. The Chairman of the Executive Committee, I believe, of the Reform League thus states what happened—
"Then followed the now celebrated demonstra-
1032
tion at Hyde Park on the 23rd of July, 1866. The Tory Government, having illegally closed the Park gates against the people"—I am not adopting this assertion—"the Park palings fell. The police and military, called in to the aid of the Government, were unable to clear the Park either that evening or on the two following days, and on the afternoon of the 25th the same Government which had closed the Park against the League and the people on the 23rd applied to the League to restore that law and order which the Government themselves had broken, and to preserve the peace of the metropolis from what threatened to be a very serious and dangerous crisis."
My Lords, I am not entering into the question of the legality or illegality of the meetings in the Park; but that the Reform League was applied to when the Government were unable to restore order in Hyde Park I believe to be perfectly true. There are too many instances of their inability to preserve the public peace and order. Tour Lordships recollect the case of the men who were executed at Manchester for the rescue of persons charged with high treason.
THE EARL OF DERBY: They were executed for murder; not for treason.
EARL RUSSELL: They were properly convicted—properly convicted of murder committed in the rescue; but I refer to the case as one in which proper precautions were not taken—had such precautions been taken there would have been no loss of life. Again, there has been the case of the working men from Staffordshire who went into Lancashire for a peaceable purpose, who were there subjected to acts of physical violence, and who were obliged to return again to Staffordshire because they could not obtain protection in Lancashire. Then the peace has been broken by the destruction of Roman Catholic chapels, and there, again, there was a neglect of precautionary measures. It was only after the steed has been stolen that precautions were taken to shut the stable door. There is another question on which, I think, we ought to call on the noble Earl to state explicitly what are the views of the Government. As I have already stated, the Government have themselves declared that they have not the confidence of the House of Commons. On the question of the Irish Church there had been at the time to which I alluded two divisions. In one of these there was a majority of 60 and in the other a majority of 65 against the Government. A third division has since been taken with a less majority, but still with a majority of 54 against the Government. It is clear, therefore, that

1033
on the subject in respect of which they themselves proclaimed that they had not the confidence of the House of Commons, they have not obtained that confidence since the power of dissolving was accorded to them. The key-stone of the arch on which the Constitution of this country rests is that a Minis try should not remain in Office unless it possesses the confidence of Parliament. The present Prime Minister was so strongly impressed with this conviction in 1841, that he quoted a saying of Mr. Fox, marked, as his sayings generally are, with superabundant energy. Mr. Fox said that the Minister who remained in Office without the confidence of Parliament was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanour. I do not say that; but I do say that the safety of the Constitution depends on the Government not remaining in Office when it ceases to possess the confidence of the House of Commons. I need not particularly refer to the events of old times, before this principle was acknowledged, when those violent means were resorted to; when Lord Strafford lost his life on the scaffold, Lord Clarendon was banished, and Danby was imprisoned; but from the time of Sir Robert Walpole to this day the machine has worked smoothly, and the safety of the Constitution of this country has depended on a change of Government being made whenever the Minister lost the confidence of the House of Commons. I am not now referring to the question of dissolution or to the appeal which may be made to the constituent body, as established upon a novel system. But I ask whether the Ministers acknowledge the principle, and whether they do not think it would be wrong to remain in Office after the dissolution if they were not supported by the confidence of the House of Commons? For that, I say, is the great key-stone of the arch of the constitution of this country. And I think, from the accounts which we had of late from the other side of the Atlantic, we may see the importance of such a principle, and that the absence of such a test is attended with great inconvenience. The President of the United States has been for some considerable time at open variance with the Congress of the United States. Had he been a Minister in this country a Vote of Want of Confidence would have displaced him; but as they have no such convenient machinery or conclusive test in
1034
America, they have thought it necessary to impeach him, and so, by obtaining a verdict of guilty, to remove him from his office. In this case we see the evils that follow from a course such as I have spoken of. I trust that at all events this contest will cease when the new Parliament is elected. If the decision of the new House of Commons be against the party to which we belong we shall bow to that decision; and I trust that Ministers will likewise bow to the voice of Parliament, and will not endeavour to set up an unconstitutional practice by attempting to sustain themselves in power in spite of the adverse decisions of the House of Commons.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl (Earl Russell) has made use of the privilege which, no doubt, he possesses as Leader of the Opposition in this House, of calling Her Majesty's Ministers to account for the many and various delinquencies which he charges upon them, and also of seeking for an explanation of those delinquencies. But, unless your Lordships have a better memory than I have, you will hardly remember with any distinctness the disconnected accusations which he has brought against us. The noble Earl began by attacking us for certain acts done one or two months ago, as to which he was totally and completely silent at the time—
EARL RUSSELL: At the beginning of this month, I think.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I allude to the time when the Prime Minister had an interview with Her Majesty. From that he went to events which occurred quite recently; and from them he jumped back again to the cow historical causes and effects of the Hyde Park riots. It is rather difficult to answer a speech so fitfully expressed as that of the noble Earl; and therefore I must beg your Lordships to grant me all your usual indulgence while I try to make intelligible that which the noble Earl, like one of the heroes of Homer, has thrown a cloud around, probably to prevent any effective reply. It was first of all asserted that we have not the confidence of Parliament; and the noble Earl, as an ancient friend and supporter of the British Constitution, stated—and stated very truly—that for a Ministry to continue in Office which docs not possess the confidence of the House of Commons is not only a delinquency in itself, but may have the worst possible

1035
results upon the country and its institutions. But then the noble Earl begs the question. He says we have not the confidence of the House of Commons; but how does he prove that? He may justly say that we have not the confidence of the House of Commons on a particular question; but I have not yet heard that the House of Commons has exercised its undoubted privilege—one that has been frequently resorted to in other cases—of expressing by a distinct declaration its want of confidence in the Government. I can only say that if the House has not any confidence in the general conduct of public affairs by the Government the discredit rests, not with the Government for remaining in Office, but with the House of Commons, which does not force them out of Office by a bold and straightforward Vote of Want of Confidence. And if the House of Commons fails in its duty, what is to prevent the noble Earl who sits opposite, or any of his Colleagues who sit near him, from inviting an expression of opinion by your Lordships by bringing forward a Motion of Want of Confidence? There must be some reason why this is not done, and I think your Lordships can easily imagine why such a Vote has not been come to, and why the noble Earl does not come forward to propose it. The plain answer must be that for the general purposes of carrying on the Business of the country the House of Commons and the House of Lords have confidence in Her Majesty's Government; and therefore all the constitutional arguments which we have heard—arguments which I have not the slightest idea of opposing—fall to the ground, because the premises will not bear the test of examination. Then, with reference to another complaint of the noble Earl, why, when the Prime Minister had the important conference with Her Majesty, and Her Majesty was graciously pleased to refuse to accept our resignations which the Prime Minister had put into her hands, why did not the noble Earl come forward at that time and explain to the House and the country how unconstitutional our conduct was in his eyes? Why, we did not hear a whisper from the noble Earl on the subject, and I think it is now nearly two months since those events occurred. Then the noble Earl entered into a discussion of various points to show that we had not the confidence of the country—or rather, that we ought not to have its confidence.
1036
But the noble Earl forgets that he and some of his former Colleagues, far from uttering the opinions which he now expresses, have on various occasions, with a generosity which we perfectly appreciate, actually gone out of their way to express satisfaction at the conduct of public affairs in several Departments. Sometimes in this House, sometimes in the other House, Her Majesty's Government have received the compliments of leading Members of the Opposition upon three or four very important subjects. The foreign policy of my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office has constantly been received with approbation in Parliament, and this feeling has been expressed especially by my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon), who, I would say, knows as much of foreign affairs as probably any of your Lordships. Then, as to the management of Ireland by the present Lord-Lieutenant and Chief Secretary for Ireland, under the great difficulties arising out of the Fenian conspiracy, from individual Peers who do not agree with us upon general subjects, as well as from individual Members of the Opposition in the other House, we have received compliments upon our conduct of Irish affairs. As to our home policy, to which the noble Earl himself adverted in speaking of the execution of the Fenians for murder, very high encomiums have been passed from time to time upon the Home Secretary for the manner in which he maintained the peace of the country, and for the great sagacity which he exhibited and labour which he bestowed upon discovering and unwinding the threads of the Fenian conspiracy. In ten days' time your Lordships, I hope, will be called on to return thanks to the gallant military and naval Forces of the Crown for their deeds in Abyssinia. I would not detract one iota from the in estimable services of those troops and their officers; but they themselves would be the first to say that this success could hardly have been looked for if the civil servants of the Crown had not exerted themselves assiduously to arrange for the transport of the troops and stores necessary to carry out that most dangerous and uncertain expedition; and, therefore, Her Majesty's Government may claim, at least, some credit for the success which, under Providence, they have had in Abyssinia, and I do not think it likely that upon that score the House of Commons will express any disapprobation of our policy. I must con-

1037
fess that I did not quite understand the drift of one part of the noble Earl's observations. He thinks we act unconstitutionally by remaining in Office; and, somehow or other—for he docs not explain that point—he thinks that Public Business has suffered, that many important questions have been neglected and have fallen through, and that we are not as much advanced as we ought to be at this season of the year. Well, my Lords, such are the facts; but what are the causes? Allow me to ask your Lordships to take a retrospect of past events; they have been very important, and to a great extent they certainly have been unforeseen. I have no scruple in saying that in January this was the general view formed by public men of the course which public affairs were likely to take this Session. The great controversy which had been going on for some years had been partly closed by the efforts of my noble Friend the noble Earl the late Prime Minister; the Reform Bill for England had been carried; but the Bills for Scotland and Ireland were still outstanding. And if the noble Earl reproaches us for not passing them last year, all I can say is—remembering the time that the English Bill occupied—it was physically impossible for us to do so. In January last, therefore, the organization of the Constitution was in abeyance; the Reform Bill for England had passed into law, but those for Scotland and Ireland had still to be adopted. Under these circumstances what were the expectations of nine men out often throughout the country? They thought this Session would be occupied in maturing the great question of Reform, and completing it in all its points—by passing the Scotch and Irish Bills; by passing the Bill for restraining corrupt practices; by passing the Boundary Bill; and thus having prepared a new arena for both parties to engage in a trial of strength and integrity, the country would decide in a fair field by which of the two parties it would be governed. This was the universal feeling: and although this feeling would not necessarily prevent the proposition of measures of another description, we purposely selected measures that were not likely to provoke opposition and political feeling; and in the like spirit we withdrew the Education Bill to which the noble Earl has referred. But a great misfortune befel the country; the noble Earl at the head of the Government (the Earl of Derby) was obliged to resign Office
1038
at the beginning of the year, and the whole aspect of affairs was altered. The armed truce which we expected would last till the Reform Bills had passed and until the dissolution in the autumn was suddenly broken; there arose new causes for political agitation, and these circumstances are in reality the cause of those defects in legislation on which the noble Earl has commented. My Lords, a new and extraneous question of the highest possible importance was broached; it was a question of far more importance, indeed, than the Reform Bills, because they involve only questions of detail as to the method of Parliamentary election and management. And that important question to which I refer was not dealt with after the manner in which it was brought forward by the noble Earl opposite some time ago; he proposed only a modification of the Irish Church by taking a little from, it here and adding a little there, by apportioning its possessions among itself and neighbours; but Mr. Gladstone came upon the scene and treated the proposal of the noble Earl with as little respect as if it had come from this side of the House. Mr. Gladstone declared at once—"This scheme won't do; it's mere milk and water. It's not worth having; it's like the drag which you ran thirty years ago—the Appropriation Clause." That was Mr. Gladstone's view; the remedy was not strong enough for him—he felt he could get no followers with such a programme; and having no more respect for a measure proposed by the noble Earl than he would have had for one proposed on this side of the House, he boldly and at once declared, not for reforming the Irish Church, but for its abolition. The noble Earl has asked me to state the opinions of the Government on one or two points, and among others he has asked what I think respecting the state of Ireland, and what would be the best means to adopt for its pacification. Now, I think the noble Earl is about the last man who should press that question, because when a noble Viscount connected with Ireland (Viscount Lifford) recommended interference with the Irish Church only two years ago, the noble Earl with considerable energy absolutely put him down and said the thing should not be. And I might ask what did the noble Earl then depend upon to keep Ireland in a state of comparative order? Force, my Lords. No doubt the noble Earl had some statesmanlike reasons

1039
for adopting that policy; he could not have summarily rejected the counsels of the noble Viscount from mere caprice, and rebuked him in a fit of ill-temper. I need hardly tell the noble Earl what are our views upon the subject of interference with the Established Church of Ireland. I would not remain silent on that subject if I were not a Member of the Administration, and as long as I have a vote in this House I will use it to support the Irish Church; and I will do so because I am convinced that Church cannot be disestablished and disendowed without carrying with it in its downfall the Established Church in England. These are not my opinions only; I hear them expressed by men who are best judges of what the result would be, and they are largely shared in by Dissenters, some of whom deprecate the disestablishment of the Irish Church. I happen to have heard, from both those Dissenters who favour, and those who object to this movement, the opinion that, if carried, it will be but the prelude to the total disestablishment of the English Church; and this opinion has been expressed on the one part with joy, and on the other with the deepest regret. I therefore give the noble Earl my opinion very plainly; and I believe my Colleagues entirely concur with me in the view I take. The noble Earl has touched upon the Roman Catholic University scheme. The proposition we made was rejected by the Roman Catholic Bishops because we made it a sine quâ non that a lay element should have part in the management of the University; and if the noble Earl will read the published Correspondence between the Earl of Mayo and the Roman Catholic Bishops he will be in possession of all the information he asks for. I think I have nothing more to say in answer to the noble Earl, except to add with regard to the j dissolution that the sooner the event occurs the better Her Majesty's Government will be pleased, and no one will welcome it more heartily than myself. If the noble Earl has not patience to wait until such time as the dissolution can be brought about with fairness to the electors, I can only entreat him to move in this House, and ask his Friends in the other House also to move, a Vote of Want of Confidence against Her Majesty's Ministers.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned accordingly at half past Seven o'clock to Monday, the 8th of June next. Eleven o'clock.